We have all been taught Ohms Law as gospel to explain voltage, resistance and current and we have diligently applied Ohms Law as DIYers in our persuit of audio bliss but just as Newtonian Physics was inadequate to explain lightspeed energy we must attempt to find another way to explain what is happening to our music signal as it interacts with a loudspeaker. This thread will introduce the Nania Audio Power Theory to the forum because I think it deserves the full scrutiny of this Forum. If it can hold up against the scrutiny and critical eye of the esteemed peers in this forum, it may prove to have value. Even if it gets shot down in flames I believe it may become an important step to better understanding of what makes a great audio experience and that is what I am here for.
Simply stated, the Nania Audio Power Theory asserts that the amplifier is delivering music to the speaker in a "power profile". I offer that the audio signal is delivered as power and that power has a profile of current times amplitude. In a given time portion of an identical audio signal can be delivered with a profile of 2 amps and 8 mV or 8 amps and 2mV by two different amplifiers. I believe that the amplifier (and the interconnects to a lesser extent) are the determining factor of how the current controls the speaker drivers. A high current sounds like a tighter grip on the speaker drivers which results in less driver transient motion and a tighter more resolute image. Volts will slap the drivers into motion but lose control relatively quickly and the residual motion (transient) from the inertia results in loose control and a poorer image. To make an analogy, voltage is a punch and current is a grab and pull of the speaker drivers. This is the only way that I can reconcile what I hear to what I understand about electronics.
I understand that what I propose may seem blasphemous to many but my ears and many amplifier auditions have forced me to look for a better way to explain what I am hearing and why I am hearing it. I am currently working on a mathematical proof of the Nania Audio Power Theory and am open to any ideas the members of this forum can provide as to what other kinds of electrical instruments (oscilloscopes, etc.) and testing techniques would validate the Nania Audio Power Theory. I am currently using a pair of tektronix 442's (35MHz/2mV resoultion) but I am always looking for new ideas on how to prove my theory.
Simply stated, the Nania Audio Power Theory asserts that the amplifier is delivering music to the speaker in a "power profile". I offer that the audio signal is delivered as power and that power has a profile of current times amplitude. In a given time portion of an identical audio signal can be delivered with a profile of 2 amps and 8 mV or 8 amps and 2mV by two different amplifiers. I believe that the amplifier (and the interconnects to a lesser extent) are the determining factor of how the current controls the speaker drivers. A high current sounds like a tighter grip on the speaker drivers which results in less driver transient motion and a tighter more resolute image. Volts will slap the drivers into motion but lose control relatively quickly and the residual motion (transient) from the inertia results in loose control and a poorer image. To make an analogy, voltage is a punch and current is a grab and pull of the speaker drivers. This is the only way that I can reconcile what I hear to what I understand about electronics.
I understand that what I propose may seem blasphemous to many but my ears and many amplifier auditions have forced me to look for a better way to explain what I am hearing and why I am hearing it. I am currently working on a mathematical proof of the Nania Audio Power Theory and am open to any ideas the members of this forum can provide as to what other kinds of electrical instruments (oscilloscopes, etc.) and testing techniques would validate the Nania Audio Power Theory. I am currently using a pair of tektronix 442's (35MHz/2mV resoultion) but I am always looking for new ideas on how to prove my theory.